That's the
message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed
to participants in the first World Policy Forum,
held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy -- saying
America must "heal wounds" it has caused to
other nations, revive its alliances and
apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush
administration."

The most important change would occur in the
Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's
interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who
have controlled American policy for decades"
remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of
their clout when Barack Obama enters the White
House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a
wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that
Obama promises is not limited to what we do in
America itself. It is a change of the way
America looks at the world and its place in it."

Ay Mi Cuba

Calling for a new direction when it comes to Cuba, Obama today said
as president he would allow unlimited family travel and remittances to
the island.

"It's time for more than tough talk that never yields
results. It’s time for a new strategy," he said. "It's time to let
Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and
brothers. It’s time to let Cuban American money make their
families less dependent upon the Castro regime."

Obama on Cuba (01:37

Cowtowing

For an entire week, Americans watched as Senator Barack
Obama took his act on the road, courting the European elitists and
cowtowing to an endless array of foreign politicians. At this
point it may be easy to take Obama’s "celebri-plomacy" lightly.
Yet, his trip highlights a dangerous threat to America’s national
sovereignty in the form of his globalist policies that will diminish
America’s role in the world and outsource decisions of vital national
interest to the United Nations.

Obama's Global Poverty Act, currently under consideration in Congress,
is just one such policy. Despite its seemingly innocuous title,
the Global Poverty Act would force America to adopt the U.N.’s
"Millennium Development Goals" as official U.S. policy. This means
outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the
use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for
allowing the U.N. to play the "middle man" in our global war on poverty
would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product.
That’s right. Barack Obama and his liberal allies such as Senator
Biden have signed on to a bill that would allow the U.N. to tax America
(and Americans) an estimated $845 billion over the next 13 years.
Obama’s plan represents perhaps the greatest affront to our national
sovereignty since the War of 1812.

How’s That Apology Thing Working Out?

Ken Blackwell
says that as a candidate, Barack Obama wowed the world. He
went to Berlin and gave a speech at their victory monument. It was
a curious venue for such a speech. But a million Germans came out
to hear him. It was a phenomenal scene. No one remembers
what he said there, but it was quite a show. A year later, when he
returned to the continent, he spoke at Normandy. No one can quite
recall what Obama said, but everyone remembers what Newsweek’s Evan
Thomas said: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above
-- above the world, he’s sort of God."

If you are hailed as a
"sort of God," it’s no wonder that your head gets turned. You
don’t want to seem puffed up, or succumb to the sin of pride. So
you start apologizing. Not for yourself, but for your country.
America has been arrogant, you tell the world. America has tried
to go it alone. America has not sufficiently respected the rest of
the world. And you bow. You bow a lot.

You decide you
should "re-set" relations with Russia. Back in America’s sinful
past, those evil days B.O., Before Obama, the U.S. objected to Russia’s
invading neighboring Georgia and ripping of a piece of South Ossetia.
Well, who really cares who runs South Ossetia, or North Ossetia, for
that matter? What a little Ossetia between friends, anyway?

So you send your defeated rival, Hillary, out to face the press with
a misspelled Russian "reset" button. She humiliates herself and
her country in front of Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov by apologizing
for that late unpleasantness over Russia’s naked aggression. Then,
to make nice even more nice, you ditch the Anti-Ballistic Missile system
that had been promised to the Poles and the Czechs because it annoyed
the Russians.

Not to worry, though, all this apologizing is going
to bring the Russians around on the really big thing: Iran’s nuclear
ambitions. They are going to express their gratitude for all the
apologizing, re-setting, and abandoning of our East European allies by
helping us out with Iranian sanctions. The Russians will line up
for "smart sanctions," "sanctions that bite," even, if we’re really nice
to them, "crippling sanctions" against Iran.

Not so much.
Russia has just poured cold water all over Obama and Hillary. Read
it and weep:

MOSCOW (Reuters) -- Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov warned the United States and other Western nations on
Thursday against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its
nuclear program, Interfax news agency reported.

Lavrov issued this cold blast while awaiting the
arrival in Moscow of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil.
Lula, a South American leftist, was apparently unimpressed by Obama’s
embrace of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez at last year’s Latin summit.
Brazil’s vote on the UN Security Council will now go against the Obama
administration’s No. 1 priority -- Iranian sanctions. Just to put
an exclamation point after his resounding vote of não, Lula is headed
from Moscow -- to Tehran.

There, Lula will buddy up with the
anti-American mullahs, the rulers of the leading terrorist regime on
Earth. He will certainly not meet with any of the Iranian
dissidents, the green movement of democracy advocates who were shot down
in the streets last June.

What we are seeing is a nation standing
into danger. We are watching as the United States is publicly and
internationally humiliated. Our idol worship of an inexperienced
and ill-equipped leader has blinded us to the mounting dangers in a
world of dangers.

It would be hard to say which specific foreign
policy of the Obama administration is worst. Iran sanctions?
Russian relations? Attacks on Israel for Jewish settlements in
Jerusalem? Trashing the special relationship with Britain?
Insulting the Canadians in their own capital? Failure to secure
the border with Mexico? We have an entire menu of foreign policy
disasters to consider. Maybe if your perspective is from above it
all, standing up there as sort of God, it looks better. For those
of us with our feet firmly on the ground, it looks less heavenly.

Israel Is An Infection

In an
interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic, Barack Obama
presents himself as the best friend Israel ever had.

Then he proceeds to call Israel a "constant sore" that "infects all of
our foreign policy:" Obama on Zionism and Hamas.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is, that this constant wound, that this
constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.

Obama’s Global Failure

Daniel Greenfield says our allies hate him.
Our enemies are laughing at him. Nearly two years after Obama’s
World Tour in which he did his best to convince voters that he
understood global challenges with a high profile tour of a lot of
foreign countries (a approach that if it worked should convincingly make
every internationally famous rock star a foreign policy expert), his
biggest global accomplishment is still his ability to travel around the
world to high profile destinations on the taxpayer’s shrinking dime.

His attempts at diplomacy consisted of delivering vicious slaps
across the faces of longtime allies, from England to Israel, and
pathetic love notes to tyrants in Iran, Russia and Venezuela, who
responded by openly mocking him.

Last week, in a scene almost
worthy of the Godfather, Russia decided to stage a coup in Kyrgyzstan at
the same time that Obama was signing a nuclear arms reduction treaty
with Russia’s Medvedev. While Obama was exchanging good wishes
with the titular head of the regime backing Iran’s destabilization of
Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia was recognizing their own coup’s takeover,
with their newly installed puppet leader, Roza Otunbayeva, a Moscow
educated Soviet diplomat and top ranking former member of the Kyrgyz
Communist Party.

A few hours later, the second secretary of the
Lenin regional council, thanked Russia for its "significant
support" in the takeover.

Kyrgyzstan’s self-proclaimed interim leader
thanked Russia on Thursday for its significant support in exposing
what she said was the nepotistic and criminal regime of President
Kurbanbek Bakiyev. Separately, a senior Russian official said
Bakiyev had not fulfilled a promise to close a U.S. base in
Kyrgyzstan and Moscow would advise the new government there should
be only one military base in the former Soviet state, a Russian one.

Which of course is exactly how it will be.
And though Kyrgyzstan may be nothing more than a series of odd letters
to Obama, it’s home to one of the US bases that serves as part of the
shrinking supply line for the Surge in Afghanistan. And Putin has
just drawn a knife over one more artery feeding supplies to Allied
soldiers on the front lines, while Obama preened and posed for the
cameras with Medvedev.

The same Administration which threw a
global tantrum over the menace of Israeli houses, had nothing to say of
course. Just as it had nothing to say when after that, Hillary
Clinton was humiliated by the Russians by being subjected to extensive
public tirade. It is of course just one of those things that the
media can’t be bothered to report when faced with truly important
stories, like what Michelle Obama wore on her latest foreign trip.

CNSNews.com
is reporting
that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich characterized this week’s
nuclear summit in Washington as a "charade" that reveals the Obama
administration’s "fantasy foreign policy."

"When you can give a
speech on nuclear disarmament while the North Koreans are proving on the
same day -- deliberately -- that they have no interest in your policy"
-- that’s fantasy, Gingrich told journalists at an Americans for Tax
Reform gathering in Washington on Tuesday.

"When you can have a
big, giant summit in Washington while the Iranians hold a press
conference laughing about the concept of sanctions" -- that’s fantasy,
Gingrich said. He also mentioned China’s reluctance to go along
with another round of U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Since leaving
Congress in 1998, Gingrich has been an outspoken advocate for Reagan
conservatism. In recent months, his name has surfaced in
connection with a possible presidential run in 2012.

On Tuesday,
Gingrich described Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy as reminiscent of U.S.
foreign policy leading up to World War II. While U.S. diplomats
were meeting in Geneva to sign an anti-war pact, Adolph Hitler took the
reins in Germany, he said.

"It’s hard to believe how disengaged
the diplomatic world was from reality in the period leading up to World
War II," Gingrich said. "You’re seeing a similar pattern.
This entire charade this week (the nuclear summit) is an absurdity in
terms of the real world."

Gingrich said the Obama
administration’s approach to the Middle East also reflects a misguided
foreign policy.

"You have an administration which is angrier
about Israelis building apartments in Jerusalem than it is about
Iranians building nuclear weapons," Gingrich said.

Ronald Reagan
was successful in ending the Cold War and the nuclear threat from Russia
by standing firm against giving up ballistic missiles as part of an arms
treaty, Gingrich said: "What Reagan wanted was to be able to stop
nuclear weapons rather than sign a paper document. Reagan had
lived through the '30s. Reagan had lived through World War II.
Reagan understood that when democracies lie to themselves, dictatorships
take advantage of them."

When asked the role the Tea Party
movement would play in upcoming elections, Gingrich praised the
grassroots group as a "very healthy and very powerful" movement made up
of mostly educated people who are loyal to the U.S. Constitution and
limited government.

Gingrich said the attempt to demonize the
movement reveals the mindset of liberal politicians and members of the
media.

"Every time the left attacks the Tea Party, it reminds you
of how alien the left is from most Americans," Gingrich said. "If
you go to the average American and say, 'Doesn't the Tea Party people
frighten you?' they will tell you, 'Not nearly as much as big
government.'"

Obama Is Building A Post-American World

James G. Wiles says two different pictures come
from the recent nuclear summit in Washington, and they perfectly sum up
the success of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy of building a
post-American world.

One
shows Obama speaking
with Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister and a Conservative.
Mr. Obama is gesticulating and pointing his index finger in the PM.
Mr. Harper is frozen in place, staring at the finger. Eloquently,
however, his right fist is clenched.

Thus to our allies.
See also Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s gestures to
Britain’s Gordon Brown and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. American
allies whose national security interests and status as American allies,
which the Obama Administration has deliberately dissed, now include
India, Honduras, Poland, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, Australia and
Ukraine.

The other
image, flashed around the world, shows Obama bowing to the Chinese
President. We have, of course, seen this before. Obama is a
serial bower.

But only to America’s adversaries. So far, by
the standards of FDR, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy and LBJ -- Democratic
presidents all -- the results of the Obama foreign policy are nil.
Obama’s offer of an open hand to our enemies has so far left him holding
only a bloody stump.

Reuters is
reporting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the
United States and other Western nations on Thursday against imposing
unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Interfax news
agency reported.

The European Union has said it may impose
unilateral sanctions if a U.N. Security Council resolution fails.

Obama's administration has been lobbying Western companies not to do
business with Iran, but has not imposed sanctions against them.

Countries facing Security Council sanctions "cannot under any
circumstances be the subject of one-sided sanctions imposed by one or
other government bypassing the Security Council", Lavrov was quoted as
saying by Interfax. "The position of the United States today does
not display understanding of this absolutely clear truth."

Russia
is in talks with the United States and other U.N. Security Council
members on a fourth round of sanctions. Moscow has indicated it
could support broader sanctions but has stressed they must not harm the
Iranian people.

Washington has not publicly warned of unilateral
sanctions but has made clear it wants tougher measures than
veto-wielding Security Council member Russia is likely to accept.

Permanent Security Council member China has joined Russia in
opposing Washington's plans to impose tough, wide-ranging sanctions on
the Islamic Republic over its refusal to suspend sensitive uranium
enrichment activity and open up fully to U.N. nuclear inspections.

You’ve Got To Be Kidding

Jay Nordlinger,
commenting on the United States human-rights talks with China, says
our side is apparently led by Michael Posner, an assistant secretary of
state. I will quote from an Associated Press
report:

Posner said in addition to talks on freedom
of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials
also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human
rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial
discrimination.

He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the
American record and in fact raised on its [their?] own a new
immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a
person’s immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in
the country illegally.

I hope I have read that incorrectly, or am
interpreting it incorrectly. Did we, the United States, talking to
a government that maintains a gulag, that denies people their basic
rights, that in all probability harvests organs, apologize for the new
immigration law in Arizona? Really, really?

And that is to
leave to one side, for the moment, the question of whether issues of
crime, poverty, and so on truly belong in human-rights talks.
You remember the old line, taught to us by our dear Marxist professors:
"Here in the West, we have political rights: of expression, worship,
assembly, etc. But you can’t eat those! In the East Bloc,
they have economic and social rights: to food, shelter, health care, and
the like." Of course, free countries do better by material
measures, too -- better than those countries that have "economic
and social rights." Infinitely better.

A month ago, Obama
told the leader of Kazakhstan that we were still -- you know:
working on our democracy. An Obama national-security aide, Mike
McFaul, said, "[Obama has] taken, I think, rather historic steps to
improve our own democracy since coming to office here in the United
States." "Historic steps"? I suppose he meant national
health care, socialized medicine. I suppose, by "democracy," he
meant social democracy. Hard to tell. I don’t think he meant
that the Justice Department was going
to make the New Black
Panthers stop intimidating
voters.

Do you ever get the idea that our government is a bunch
of left-wing undergraduates come to power?

Obama's Domestic War On Democracy

Noemie Emery
says Obama kicked off his reign as the Free World's main honcho by
dissing the British, which was an unpromising start. First, he
sent back the bust of Sir Winston Churchill. Then there were the
tasteful gifts to the queen and prime minister, dug out of a sale bin at
Wal-Mart. So much for Churchill and Roosevelt, Reagan and
Thatcher, JFK and his sister's relation-in-law, Harold Macmillan --
see why.

Special relationship? What special
relationship? You must be out of your mind.

He dissed
Poland and the Czech Republic -- to make Russia happy. He dissed
Israeli -- to make Hamas happy -- making its prime minister cool his
heels somewhere while he stalked off to have dinner.

The outlines
of the emerging Obama Doctrine had begun to be obvious: He would engage,
indulge, and look kindly on the likes of tyrants like Iran and North
Korea, who armed to the teeth while threatening to eviscerate Israel and
South Korea. But when it came to democracies and political,
strategic, and historic allies of this country, their welcome and luck
had run out.

Having run out of allies to annoy or embarrass, it
seemed only a matter of time before Obama turned on his country, and
began aiming at one of its states. This would be Arizona, which
tried to check a crime wave caused by illegal immigrants, setting off a
flood of outrage not heard since Tea Party members held their last
peaceful rally, and were blasted for hoped-for but unperceived violence
while walking around bearing signs.

Obama said that his
administration was studying Arizona's law "very carefully," just before
Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano (Arizona's governor until fairly
recently) said they hadn't read it, but opposed it on general
principles. Mexico's president blasted the state from the floor of
Congress, while Obama nodded in assent, and Democrats burst into cheers.

Arizona joins Britain, Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic on the
list of democracies dissed by Obama. "Arizona might as well be an enemy
nation," says columnist Debra Saunders. And so it does seem.

Not only is Obama now in a war against his own people, he seems to
be abetting a species of civil hostility not seen here in 145 years.
Some states -- or some neighborhoods, which consist of your
brie-nibbling Metro-Americans -- want to wage civil war in the form of a
boycott of the state's hospitality, and/or of its goods.

A
boycott is perfect for this demographic, as it provides the maximum
amount of self-satisfaction at the minimum amount of effort required,
and no cost at all to themselves. Los Angeles wants to suspend
economic relations. To show they mean business, they are now
wearing bracelets: Red and blue bands designed by Rep. Joe Baca,
D-Calif., who refuses to travel through Phoenix while flying to and from
Washington.

Next, they'll roll out the big guns, and don lapel
ribbons, like actors on Oscar night. Unless all the best colors
are taken, of course.

Fortunately, in Civil War II, Arizona is
not without weapons, one, it would seem, being polls. By
substantial margins, Americans support Arizona's laws and its governor:
As November draws near, some Democrats may come to regret their members'
cheers for Mexico's president.

Outside Metro America, this may
not play well. And, Arizona supplies Los Angeles with about 25
percent of its energy. A surprise power cut might make the lights
go out in a numbers of neighborhoods, and go on in a number of heads.

As for Los Angeles, Arizona should pull the plug, pronto. Let
them sip warm chardonnay in the dark.

Obama's Islamic Poll Dance

The Washington Times
says Obama's Middle East appeasement policy has failed.

Obama
took office with a mission to transform America's image around the
world. In particular, he was determined to extend the hand of
friendship to Muslims whom he felt had been slighted during the George
W. Bush administration. Some of his efforts were substantive, such
as his attempt to close down the terrorist detainee facility at
Guantanamo Bay. Others were symbolic, such as removing all
references to Islamic extremism from U.S. national security strategies
and refusing to use the word "terrorism" when referring to jihadist
attacks on the homeland.

Despite his best efforts, Obama has
failed to woo the Muslim world. After an initial burst of
enthusiasm in 2009, America's favorability ratings sagged. A
Gallup poll on opinions of the leadership of the United States released
last week shows declines in each of six Muslim-majority countries
surveyed. Approval in Lebanon is 25 percent, a 5-percent drop back
to 2008 levels. Approval in Egypt fell by about half since last
fall, from 37 percent to 19 percent. Approval in the Palestinian
Territories is 16 percent, a drop of 4 percent and just three points
better than it was under the Bush administration. In Iraq,
approval is at 25 percent, compared to the 35 percent rating in 2008.

Polls in Israel show confidence in Obama's policies in single
digits, and American Jews are deserting him at a rate seldom seen for a
Democratic president. A McLaughlin & Associates poll released last
month showed that Obama's support among Jews plunged from 78 percent in
the 2008 election to around 40 percent and that a plurality of 46
percent would consider voting for another candidate in 2012. Two
weeks ago at an emergency White House meeting with Jewish-American
religious leaders, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel admitted that the White
House had "screwed up the messaging" about its support for Israel.
He said Obama was a friend of the Jewish state and urged the assembled
to "watch what the administration does."

This week, the United
States broke 40 years of precedent to back a United Nations resolution
calling for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel as a
problem without even mentioning Iran. It is one of the worst
diplomatic blows the United States has ever dealt to Israel, and it will
be hard to explain away as simply more incompetent messaging.

Obama's weak response to the crisis over the boarding of the Mavi
Marmara is symptomatic of the leadership vacuum Obama has created.
He issued no strong message of support for Israel, no criticism of NATO
ally Turkey for its threatening language and bellicose attitude, no
condemnation of the attempt to run supplies to Hamas through the Gaza
blockade, and no suggestion that the United States would take any action
to prevent future such flotillas from fomenting other crises, which the
Free Gaza Movement has pledged to do. Obama seems to be watching
the crisis unfold as helplessly as he watches oil leak into the Gulf of
Mexico.

Niccolo Machiavelli counseled that it is better for a
leader to be feared than loved because love is fickle and can change but
fear will endure. Obama wanted the world to love him, and the
world did, seemingly, for awhile. But love is turning to
disappointment and contempt as the world realizes that Obama is just a
charming empty suit. As he grows weaker, America's adversaries are
realizing that there is no need to fear him, either.

Palestinian Aid Package

Breitbart is
reporting that Barack Obama said Wednesday the United States was to
unveil a $400 million civilian aid package for the Palestinians, as he
called the situation in the Gaza Strip "unsustainable."

That's your money. It's
reparations to foreigners -- and many of them are terrorists.

Niles Gardner
says what a difference 18 months and an oil spill makes. In
January 2009 Barack Obama was hugely popular on this side of the
Atlantic, and could have walked on water in the eyes of the British
media, the political elites, and the general public. In June 2010
however he probably qualifies as the most despised US president since
Nixon among the British people. In fact you can’t open a London
paper at this time without reading yet another fiery broadside against a
leader who famously boasted of restoring "America’s standing" in the
world.

When even Obama’s most ardent political supporters in
Britain, including Boris Johnson, are on the offensive against the White
House, you know his halo has dramatically slipped. It’s hard to
believe that any politician could become more disliked in the UK than
Gordon Brown, but Barack Obama is achieving that in spades. And as
Janet Daley noted of the British press, the love affair with Barack is
well and truly over.

The key catalyst for rising anti-Obama
sentiment in the UK has been his disastrous handling of the BP issue,
and his relentless desire to crush Britain’s biggest company.
There is no doubting BP’s responsibility over the Gulf oil disaster, and
it is right that the firm is being held to account for its failures.
But the brutal, almost sadistic trashing of BP by the imperious Obama
administration, which has helped wipe out about half its value,
threatens its very future, as well as the pensions of 18 million British
people and the jobs of 29,000 Americans. There is now the very
real danger of the bankrupting of a great British enterprise, and the
prospect even of a Chinese or Russian takeover.

Instead of
adopting a constructive, statesmanlike approach, Barack Obama’s decision
to launch a "boot on the throat" campaign, while adopting a thinly
veiled Brit-bashing agenda, has generated significant bad blood in
America’s closest ally. At the same time, Obama has inexplicably
rejected offers of help from the UK and an array of European countries,
no doubt out of both pride and protectionism.

As I wrote
previously, we are witnessing one of the worst exercises in public
diplomacy by a US government in recent memory, one that could cause
significant long-term damage to the incredibly important economic and
political partnership between Great Britain and the United States.
And for those who say this is minor storm in a tea cup, I would point
out that it is highly unusual for a British Prime Minister to have to
stand up to an onslaught against British interests by an American
president, as David Cameron has just done. In fact the prospect of
a major confrontation between Downing Street and the White House grows
stronger by the day.

But this is not the whole picture. Obama’s
handling of BP is part of a far bigger problem. This is an
administration that has
consistently insulted Britain, and has even sided with her foes in
some cases, most notably in its wholehearted support for Argentina’s
call for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position
that has been strongly backed by Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez.
Time and time again, the Obama team has undercut America’s key allies,
from London to Prague to Jerusalem, while kowtowing to the enemies of
the United States in the name of engagement. It is a disastrous
foreign policy that not only weakens American global power, but
generates resentment and anger in nations that have traditionally stood
shoulder to shoulder with America.

The Anglo-American Special
Relationship, the most successful partnership of modern times, will
survive long after Obama departs the White House. It is far bigger
than any one president or prime minister. But there can be no
doubt that it is being significantly damaged and weakened at this moment
by Obama’s sneering approach towards Great Britain, at a time when
British and American soldiers are fighting and dying alongside each
other in a major war in Afghanistan. Obama needs to see the big
picture and understand that his anti-British posturing is hugely
counter-productive and highly offensive. He is already one of the
least popular US presidents of modern times, not only in the eyes of the
American people, but now the people of Britain as well.

Obama To Host 18 Leaders In August

Kemo Cham, is
reporting that Barack Obama has
invited 18 African leaders to celebrate the 50th anniversary of
independences of their countries. An anonymous senior U.S.
administration source, speaking on the sidelines of the just concluded
G8 Summit in Huntsville, Canada, that the Marxist gathering is scheduled
for August in Washington.

A report by French magazine, Jeune
Afrique, said that Obama embarked in an extended engagement during the
first day of the Summit in Canada, holding sessions in the afternoon
with several African heads of states, including the presidents of
Senegal, Malawi, Algeria and Ethiopia.

Alongside those of
Nigeria and South Africa, the leaders of these African countries were
among other non G8 member countries invited to the Huntsville meeting of
the 8 most industrialized nations in the world.

It is at this
meeting with African leaders that Obama reportedly made the invitation
announcement, Jeune Afrique said.

Obama, who is said to be
looking for a "fresh start", was quoted by a second Jeune Afrique source
as saying since independence, "there were many disappointments, much
frustration, and now 50 years later, we want to make a fresh start."

The G8 Summit saw a number of key issues discussed, among them the
United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), maternal, newborn
and child health, food security as well as aid to Africa.

"...maternal, newborn and child
health, food security as well as aid to Africa" -- there goes billions
more from the American treasury.

What Are You Going To Do About This, Obama?

Breitbart is
reporting that Venezuela's legislature has voted to nationalize 11
oil rigs owned by the US firm Helmerich & Payne.

The rigs,
located in Monagas, Anzoategui and Zulia states, will be taken over by
state oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the official news agency
AVN said.

PDVSA had asked the legislature controlled by
supporters of leftist President Hugo Chavez to take over the rigs after
the US firm declined to negotiate a new service contract, unlike 32
other foreign firms.

The oil giant is South America's top oil
producer.

Since 2007 Caracas has nationalized companies in
industries from oil to utilities, to telecoms, cement, steel and
banking.

Obama Chases His Tail

Paul Mirengoff
says
Syrian president Bashar Assad has declared that the Obama
administration's failure to facilitate change in the Middle East shows
that it is weak. Assad made this statement during a visit to Latin
America, which has become a region of interest to both Assad and Iranian
president Ahmadinejad.

Assad's statement provides further
evidence of the dangers that arise from Obama's obsession with forcing
Israeli concessions in the name of "peace." Try as he might, Obama
will not be able to force enough concessions to satisfy the
Palestinians, and by extension Assad. Thus, he enables Assad and
other enemies of the U.S. to portray Obama as weak and ineffectual.
And the claim is plausible because Obama is failing to meet his own
objectives.

Weakness, or even just plausible claims of weakness,
can only make Obama an object of contempt in the Middle East and
elsewhere.

Nor can Obama cure this perception by pushing harder
on the Israelis. First, once the Israelis perceive Obama as
placing demands on them in response to criticism from the likes of
Assad, he loses whatever credibility he might retain with the
government. Obama can succeed in inducing Israel to make
concessions only if the government somehow believes he's urging these
concessions based on Israel's interests, not his own desire to save
face.

Second, as already mentioned, each concession Obama
extracts from Israel under pressure from Arab states will lead to
pressure to extract new concessions. This puts Obama in the
position of chasing his tail. There are few surer signs of
weakness than that.

Assad is playing Obama, and who can blame
him? Why should he treat Obama better than Putin, Ahmadinejad,
Chavez, etc., do?

Related: Obama has declined to publicly
affirm commitments made by President Bush to Israel in 2004 on the final
borders of the Jewish state.

Obama's Trip To India Will Cost $200
Million Per Day

Press Trust of India
is reporting that the US will be spending a whopping $200 million
per day on Barack Obama's visit to Mumbai, India.

"The huge
amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other
aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra
Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government
officials and journalists wil accompany Obama. Several officials
from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the
past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security
instruments.

"Except for personnel providing immediate security
to the President, the US officials may not be allowed to carry weapons.
The state police is competent to take care of the security measures and
they would be piloting the Presidential convoy," the official said on
condition of anonymity.

A
billion dollars -- and for what?

Obama Chan

One of our members, who is known on FreeRepublic.com as
Candor7, is a
serious man who has
spent years in Japan, and has family there.

He
explains the various terms of address that reflect Japanese
attitude.

"Samma" is a term for a highly respected man.
For example, Ronald Reagan would be "Reagan samma."

Equals in
station are called "San" -- "Lucy san" for example.

Children
and those who act like children are addressed as "Chan."
Candor7
calls his daughter-in-law "Misato chan."

He says, geriatrics, who act
like children, are referred to as "Ojia-chan."

Ones
social station and mode of address is related to outward appearance
but also is related to one’s conduct as well.

Candor7
explains that what you see in the above photo are the Japanese
patronizing Obama as a child. They have their "Obama chan" faces on,
much as you would if you had to sit beside an Irish setter in church
that was noisily slobbering on an ice cream cone.

Kamakura
is a sacred place, and Obama's behavior was so out of context, it
was beyond ludicrous.

So it's "Obama chan." He will
never amount to anything in the East. The South Koreans will
hardly talk to the man child. The Japanese treat him as
child, literally. This can be clearly seen in the green tea
popsicle photo, it is subtle, but very evident to any Japanese
person. Obama was tolerated in Japan, as a child. South
Korea would not even tolerate him diplomatically -- nor would the
Chinese.

The only fans Obama has internationally are Muslims
(who see him as a weak chump), and his own leg tingly fans at home.
Everyone else in the world does not want to be in the same room with
him. They see him responsible for the destruction of America
and her ability to stabilize the world through her strength.
They know it means WW III eventually.

Candor7 says he is
ashamed of Obama more than he's angry at him, reference Japan. Modern Asians cannot stand dogma because it reminds them of
totalitarian society from which all have historically suffered
in Asia, and Obama is a walking dogma machine.

Obama's Message To The World

Scott Johnson
says the Obama administration has
a message for the world. The message is something along these
lines: The United States is very bad, but Barack Obama is very good.
He seeks to redeem America from its evil.

Eye on the UN
has
compiled the disgusting video below of the United States abasing itself
before some of the most reprehensible regimes in the world. I
believe this is what goes under the name of "smart diplomacy" in the
Obama administration.

The video depicts in condensed form the
three-hour appearance of the United States in the dock at the UN Human
Rights Council
to present its first-ever universal periodic review
report and receive recommendations for improvement from council members.
Eye on the UN's Anne Bayefsky
explained at the time that 56 countries
lined up for the opportunity to have at the U.S. representatives, many
standing in line overnight for the opportunity to be near the top of the
list. Making it to the head of the line were Cuba, Venezuela,
Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and North Korea.

Assistant
Secretary of State Michael Posner made an appearance to play his
designated role demeaning the United States on behalf of the Obama
administration. The weasel Posner
replied "thanks to very many of the delegations
for thoughtful comments and suggestions" shortly after Cuba said the
U.S. blockade of Cuba was a "crime of genocide," Iran "condemned and
expressed its deep concern over the situation of human rights" in the
United States, and North Korea said it was "concerned by systematic
widespread violations committed by the United States at home and
abroad."

Carl in Jerusalem aptly
comments: "The key foreign
policy goal of the Obama administration is to destroy the notion that
America is an exceptional nation, and to cut it down to the same size as
brutal dictatorships around the world. Trying to cut down
America's most feisty ally by forcing it into a situation where it will
have to fight for its very existence is part of the same

It should be noted that the formal response of the United States
to the constructive criticisms tendered by the likes of Cuba and Iran is
posted here,
and will make your head explode.

Update: Steven Den Beste thanks Obama almighty
and comments: "When I read about this, it reminded me of the movie
Becket, which begins with Henry II submitting himself to a ritual
flogging by Catholic priests, as penance for the murder of Thomas
Becket."

And Allahpundit tweets: "Stick with [the video] at least
until North Korea starts to speak." Good advice, if you're not
struggling with anger management issues!

Surrendering Our Sovereignty

Wayne LaPierre says that for the first time in
history, the United States government has bowed before the United
Nations with the Obama administration cravenly asking U.N. officials to
question our great nation on what a State Department report confesses to
be domestic "human rights" violations.

In submitting what amounts
to an American guilty plea to the U.N.'s Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR), the Obama administration has effectively
unsealed the protections of our Constitution to the predations of the
United Nations.

Add to that the Obama administration's agreement
to aggressively pursue participation in the creation of a U.N. gun-ban
treaty. In reversing President George W. Bush's opposition to
U.N.-mandated international gun control, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton declared, "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a
strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally
binding standards. …"

Included in the August 2010 submission of
what the Obama-Clinton State Department considers America's affronts
against "human rights" is Arizona's effort to enforce federal
immigration laws -- laws negated by the Obama administration's refusal to
seal our porous borders against the flow of criminal aliens, terrorists
and international drug traffickers.

Until the "change" of the
Obama administration, the U.S. has consistently refused to participate
in the farce of U.N. "human rights" bodies that are comprised of rogue
states like Syria and Cuba.

Remember Obama's 2008 victory
promise: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the
United States of America." With this single step, he has shared that
destructive effort with the United Nations.

The fire sale of our
sovereignty came with the Aug. 20, 2010 "Report of the United States of
America Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights In
Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review."

A fact sheet
posted on the U.S. State Department website explaining the "Universal
Periodic Review" should chill the heart of every citizen who believes in
the sanctity of our shores and the freedom of "We the People."

It
says the second step -- following submission of the "human rights"
report -- is what the State Department reverently refers to as "The
Review":

"The review of a national government takes place in a
working group of the [U.N. Human Rights Council]… Each country under
review undergoes a three-hour Q&A session webcast on the U.N. website,
in which any U.N. member is able to ask questions and make
recommendations."

Any U.N. member can question the United States
of America on our human rights; Zimbabwe, perhaps, or how about Sudan,
Iran, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or whatever they call the
brutish regime in the former Burma.

"The reviewed national
government is entitled to use one hour of that time to present its
report, respond to any written question it may have received prior to
the day of the review, respond to oral questions, comments and
recommendations from the floor and present its conclusions."

I
can give my conclusion right now. Why are we letting these people do
this to our country?

Well, here’s an answer to that question -– a nine-minute
video of portions of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal
Periodic Review of the United States that was held on November 5, 2010.

You will probably be very angry after watching this kangaroo-court
humiliate of our nation in front of the world, by representatives of
some of the most despicable and repressive despots on the face of the
Earth

Barack Obama not only signed on to it -- he sent
America-despising ambassadors
Esther Brimmer and
Michael Posner to
participate in allowing outrageously false accusations of the most gross
violations one could imagine a government committing against humanity. Brimmer was positively beaming at the opportunity to see her own nation
flogged, drawn and quartered.

Watch the whole thing. The end is a killer. The message?
America bad. Obama good.

White House Statement On Leaks

(AP)
We anticipate the release of what are claimed to be several hundred
thousand classified State Department cables on Sunday night that detail
private diplomatic discussions with foreign governments.

By its
very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often
incomplete information. It is not an expression of policy, nor
does it always shape final policy decisions.

Nevertheless, these
cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and
opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is
printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply
impact not only US foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and
friends around the world.

To be clear -- such disclosures put at
risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals and people around the
world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting
democracy and open government. These documents also may include
named individuals who in many cases live and work under oppressive
regimes and who are trying to create more open and free societies.

President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open
government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous
action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and
classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of
human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We
condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified
documents and sensitive national security information.

This will show 'em who's boss!

The Lunatic Who Thinks He's Barack Obama

Spengler says that Napoleon was a lunatic who
thought he was Napoleon, and the joke applies to Barack Obama with a vengeance. What doesn't
Obama know, and when
didn't he know it? American foreign policy turned delusional when Obama took office, and the latest batch of leaks suggest that the main
source of the delusion is sitting in the Oval Office.

From the
first batch of headlines there is little in WikiLeaks'
250,000
classified diplomatic cables that a curious surfer would not have known
from the Internet. We are shocked -- shocked -- to discover that the Arab
Gulf states favor an invasion of Iran; that members of the Saudi royal
family fund terrorism; that Pakistan might sell nuclear material to
malefactors; that Saudi Arabia will try to acquire nuclear weapons if
Iran does; that Israel has been itching for an air strike against Iran's
nuclear facilities; that the Russian government makes use of the Russian
mob; that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan tilts
towards radical Islam; or that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
mixes politics and business.

American career diplomats have been
telling their masters in the Obama administration that every theater of
American policy is in full-blown rout, forwarding to Washington the
growing alarm of foreign leaders. In April 2008, for example, Saudi
Arabia's envoy to the US Adel al-Jubeir told General David Petraeus that
King Abdullah wanted the US "to cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake"
and "recalled the king's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran
and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program".

Afghani
President Hamid Karzai warned the US that Pakistan was forcing Taliban
militants to keep fighting rather than accept his peace offers. Pakistani government officials, other cables warn, might sell nuclear
material to terrorists.

The initial reports suggest that the US
State Department has massive evidence that Obama's approach --
"engaging" Iran and coddling Pakistan -- has failed catastrophically. The crisis in diplomatic relations heralded by the press headlines is
not so much a diplomatic problem -- America's friends and allies in
Western and Central Asia have been shouting themselves hoarse for two
years -- but a crisis of American credibility.

Not one Muslim
government official so much as mentioned the issues that have occupied
the bulk of Washington's attention during the past year, for example,
Israeli settlements. The Saudis, to be sure, would prefer the
elimination of all Israeli settlements; for that matter, they would
prefer the eventual elimination of the state of Israel. In one
conversation with a senior White House official, Saudi King Abdullah
stated categorically that Iran, not Palestine, was his main concern;
while a solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict would be a great
achievement, Iran would find other ways to cause trouble.

"Iran's goal is to cause problems," Abdullah added. "There is no doubt
something unstable about them." There never has been a shred of evidence
that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement would help America contain Iran's
nuclear threat. The deafening silence over this issue in the diplomatic
cables is the strongest refutation of this premise to date.

How
do we explain the gaping chasm between Obama's public stance and the
facts reported by the diplomatic corps? The cables do not betray
American secrets so much as American obliviousness. The simplest and
most probable explanation is that Obama is a man obsessed by his
own vision of a multipolar world, in which America will shrink its
standing to that of one power among many, and thus remove the
provocation on which Obama blames the misbehavior of the Iranians,
Pakistanis, the pro-terrorist wing of the Saudi royal family, and other
enemies of the United States.

Never underestimate the power of
nostalgia. With a Muslim father and stepfather, and an anthropologist
mother whose life's work defended Muslim traditional society against
globalization, Obama harbors an overpowering sympathy for the Muslim
world.

Daniel Greenfield says that after the 2010
elections, it's not exactly news that Obama has lost America. But
in a less public referendum, he also lost the world. Obama's
cocktail party tour of the world's capitals may look impressive on a
map, but is irrelevant on a policy level. In less than two years,
the White House has gone from being the center of world leadership to
being irrelevant, from protecting world freedom to serving as a global
party planning committee.

Even the Bush Administration's harshest
critics could never have credibly claimed that George W. Bush was
irrelevant. He might have been hated, pilloried and shouted about
-- but he couldn't be ignored. However Obama can be safely
ignored. Invited to parties, given the chance to show off his
cosmopolitan sophisticated by reciting one or two words in the local
lingo, read off a teleprompter, along with some cant about the need for
everyone to pull together and make the world a better place, and then
dismissed for the rest of the evening.

As a world leader, Obama
makes a passable party guest. He has a broad smile, brings along
his own gifts and is famous in the way that celebrities, rather than
prime ministers and presidents are famous. On an invitation list,
he is more Bono than Sarkozy, Leonardo DiCaprio not Putin. You
don't invite him to talk turkey, not even on Thanksgiving. He's
just one of those famous people with a passing interest in politics who
gets good media attention, but who has nothing worthwhile to say.

The only countries who take Obama seriously, are the ones who have
to. The leaders of Great Britain, Israel and Japan -- who have
tied their countries to an enduring alliance with America based on
mutual interests and values, only to discover that the latest fellow to
sit behind the Oval Office desk no longer shares those values and
couldn't give less of a damn about American interests. It's no
wonder that European leaders ignore him as much as possible. Or
that Netanyahu visited America, while Obama was abroad. Or that
Japanese politics have become dangerously unstable.

On the enemy
side, the growing aggressiveness of China, North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah
and Al Qaeda can all be attributed to the global consensus that no one
is at home in the White House. And if no one is at home in the
White House, then that's a perfect time to slap the big boy around the
yard. China is doing it economically, the rest are doing it
militarily. They're all on board with Obama's Post-American vision
of the world. But unlike him and most liberals, they have a clear
understanding of what that means. The America of some years back,
which actually intimidated Libyan dictator Khaddafi into giving up his
nuclear program, without lifting a hand against him is long gone.
So is the Cedar Revolution. Syria and Iran are back in charge in
Lebanon, and in Afghanistan, the Taliban are laughing at our soft power
outreach efforts.

Obama's soft power approach emphasizes the
"soft" and forgets the "power." It neglects even Clinton era
understandings about the role of America in the world, and reverts
instead to a Carter era sense of guilt that bleeds into hostility toward
American interests and allies. While the rest of the world puts
their own interests first, they act like a cog in some imaginary global
community, turning and turning toward the distant horizon of
international brotherhood. While China, Russia and most of the
world walk down their backs and up their jellyfish spines, laughing all
the way. And America's allies gird themselves and prepare for the
worst.

From the first, this administration has curried favor with
America's enemies by betraying and humiliating its allies. But
these hideous acts of moral cowardice have not won Obama the approval of
America's enemies, only their contempt, and a Nobel Peace Prize from a
committee of elderly left wing Swedes, awarded not for any
accomplishment, but for the lack thereof. For being a man without
a country, a leader without a spine and a representative of America who
gives no thought for the interests of that country.

Lesley Clark says the Obama administration said
it will allow for more U.S. travel to Cuba, making it easier for
schools, churches and cultural groups to visit the island.

A
senior Obama official told The Miami Herald the much-expected move to
expand cultural, religious and educational travel to Cuba is part of the
administration's continuing "effort to support the Cuban people's desire
to freely determine their own future."

Barack Obama is also
restoring the amount of money ($2,000) that can be sent to nonfamily
members to the level they were at during part of the Clinton and Bush
administrations. There will be a quarterly limit on the amount
that any American can send: $500 per quarter to "support private
economic activity.''

The administration also will restore the
broader "people-to-people'' category of travel, which allows
"purposeful'' visits to increase contacts between U.S. and Cuban
citizens.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, the new chair of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, assailed the revision, saying they
"will not help foster a pro-democracy environment in Cuba."

"These changes will not aid in ushering in respect for human rights,''
Ros-Lehtinen said. "And they certainly will not help the Cuban
people free themselves from the tyranny that engulfs them. These
changes undermine U.S. foreign policy and security objectives and will
bring economic benefits to the Cuban regime.''

The Times Of India is reporting that Barack
Obama implicitly acknowledged the decline of American dominance, and
said the US was no longer in a position to "meet the rest of the world
economically on our terms".

Speaking at a town hall meeting in
Mumbai, he said, "I do think that one of the challenges that we are
going face in the US, at a time when we are still recovering from the
financial crisis is, how do we respond to some of the challenges of
globalization? The fact of the matter is that for most of my
lifetime and I'll turn 50 next year -- the US was such an enormously
dominant economic power, we were such a large market, our industry, our
technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the
rest of the world economically on our terms. And now because of
the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil and other countries [and
Obama's policies], the US remains the largest economy and
the largest market, but there is real competition."

"This will keep America on its toes.
America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a
tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalization as a
threat and those who accept we live in a open integrated world,
which has challenges and opportunities."

The US leader disagreed with those who saw
globalization as unmitigated evil [of
course he did]. But while acknowledging that
the China/India factor had made the world flatter, he said protectionist
impulses in US will get stronger if people don't see trade bringing in
gains for them. Obama said:

"If the American people feel that trade is
just a one-way street where everybody is selling to the enormous US
market but we can never sell what we make anywhere else, then the
people of the US will start thinking that this is a bad deal for us
and it could end up leading to a more protectionist instinct in both
parties, not just among Democrats but also Republicans. So,
that we have to guard against."

He pointed out that America, which once traded
without bothering about barriers put up by partners, could not promote
trade at its own expense at a time when India and China were rising.
"There has to be reciprocity in our trading relationships and if we can
have those kind of conversations -- fruitful, constructive conversation
about how we produce win-win situations, then I think we will be fine."

Obama's remarks at the town hall meeting exposed his tremendous
anxiety over the failure of his policies to spur the US economy fast
enough and create jobs for Americans facing nearly 10% unemployment
rate.

Rick Richman
says
that last year, Barack Obama said nothing as mass demonstrations against
an evil regime took place in Iran. This year, he said and did
nothing as Lebanon was taken over by a Syrian/Iranian proxy. He
had no comment on Tunisia while events were occurring -- his secretary
of state announced we were not taking sides. It got a shout-out in
his State of the Union address ("America stands with the people of
Tunisia") once the dictator was gone.

It seemed as if Obama’s
guiding principle in foreign affairs was to avoid confrontations (unless
someone announced Jewish housing in Jerusalem). He ignored
human-rights issues in China, reset relations with Russia, outstretched
his hand to Iran, went to Cairo to issue a message of peace to the
entire Muslim world, and endlessly courted Syria even as it rejected
him. It was a hazardous time to be a U.S. ally: Poland, Georgia,
the Czech Republic, Columbia, Honduras, South Korea, Britain, and Israel
all saw their interests slighted or subordinated to Obama’s other
concerns.

Obama’s initial response to the mass demonstrations in
Egypt was also silence. Ironically, this might have been the
appropriate strategy. Dealing with an important U.S. ally, in a
tense and uncertain situation, with repercussions affecting U.S.
interests throughout the Middle East, required private efforts.
Calling publicly for the overthrow of a leader who had allied himself
with the U.S. for decades might simply energize U.S. enemies and
demoralize allies; even Jimmy Carter never publicly called for the
Shah’s resignation. At 82 years old, Hosni Mubarak was likely to
be leaving soon in any event; the transition to a different leader, or a
different regime, called for quiet diplomacy, not a speech.

Getting rid of Mubarak and holding an election within a few months,
where the only organized political group was an ally of Iran, was not
necessarily the best way to promote freedom in Egypt -- as the 2006
Palestinian election demonstrated. The outcome of the 1933 German
election is not an argument against democracy -- but having seen what
happened in 1933, one might not necessarily make it a central goal in
1938 to hold an election in a neighboring country and risk transforming
it into another ally of Hitler.

An important concept is the one
acknowledging, "no strategy is applicable in every circumstance."
The danger is very real that Egypt might follow the path of
revolutionary Iran. If that is true, promoting regime change when
regime change might produce a significantly worse regime is not
self-evidently the right strategy.

Obama's Handling Of Egypt Like Carter's
Handling Of Iran

The Examiner.com
says that Newt Gingrich compared Obama handling of Egypt to Carter
handling of Iran. Talking about the increasingly volatile
developments in Egypt last night, Gingrich communicated what he thought
so far of the Obama Administration's handling of the crisis. And he had
only disparagements to hand out in his description of Obama and
company's series of blunders. Citing the very real potential for
great harm and risk to emerge in Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood takes
power (as many expect it to), Gingrich declared that Obama's performance
has been as bad as Jimmy Carter's performance in the late 1970s
regarding Iran, which saw the American alliance there collapse in the
face of a hostile, Islamic takeover.

Appearing on Sean Hannity's
show last night, Gingrich was brought on to analyze, first, the
embarrassing comments of the so-called Director of National
Intelligence, James Clapper. Late yesterday, Clapper's office had
to retreat from his self-incriminatingly ignorant statement and,
essentially, spin that Clapper really knew all along that the Muslim
Brotherhood was not secular -- just that he chose to make it look like
he didn't know while in front of Congress!!

Citing that massive
gaffe by the very inept-sounding Clapper, Gingrich then went on to
present another, recent example of Obama Administration idiocy regarding
the Egypt quagmire. As a matter of fact, his next example occurred
yesterday, too, making it a double shot of Obama bungling on the Egypt
mess! To underscore the verified lack of knowhow in the administration,
Leon Panetta, the "brilliant" and very "smooth" CIA Director, let
another errant statement fly out of his mouth, just like Clapper did.
Only this time, Panetta proved that Obama Administration members are as
inept at making predictions as they are about familiarizing themselves
with radical Islamic groups. Panetta's failed prediction, you ask?
The utterly laughable claim that under-pressure Egyptian dictator Hosni
Mubarak would step down later on in the day!

However, we all know
what happened instead: Mubarak refused to step down, merely giving some
power to his vice-president, General Omar Suleiman, in a largely
symbolic and devious move. So that clearly meant that Panetta
suffered a massive case of having egg on his face, because he could not
have made his bone-headed prediction at a more inopportune time.
Coupled with the failure by Clapper to also get things right with
regards to identifying what the Muslim Brotherhood is all about -- it
takes only two seconds to Google it, Mr. Clapper! -- the Obama
Administration was showing off its incompetence like a worse-than-usual
episode of the slapstick comedy, the Benny Hill Show.

In light of
all of this, Gingrich is not only right to denounce Obama's (mis)handling
of Egypt to be as incompetent as Carter's was with Iran, but he is also
warning of what, sadly, may just be another Middle Eastern country
officially lost to anti-American forces of barbarity and fanaticism.
Aside from the gaffes yesterday, Joe Biden still expressed support for
Mubarak in late January, even when mass protests where already
occurring, so it is really verifiable that the Obama Administration is
in total screw-up mode with regards to Egypt. The most repugnant
part of their screw-ups, however, is that the world will have to suffer
another country that may be a bastion of Islamic terror attacks.

Obama's Wishful Thinking

Robert Spencer says in Barack Obama’s statement
on the uprising in Libya Wednesday, he asserted somewhat
counterfactually that "throughout this period of unrest and upheaval
across the region the United States has maintained a set of core
principles which guide our approach." He added that "these
principles apply to the situation in Libya" -- and as he delineated them
further, it became clear that he was siding strongly with the Libyan
people and other Middle Eastern protesters, and that he was assuming
that the recent Middle Eastern uprisings were all idealistic, humanistic
pro-democracy movements. In reality, they’re anything but.

Obama condemned "the use of violence in Libya," declaring that "the
suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable. So
are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish
the people of Libya." He affirmed that "the United States also
strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people," and
enumerated several of those rights: "That includes the rights of
peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to
determine their own destiny."

That phrasing itself suggested
that Obama envisioned the crowds thronging the streets of Tripoli,
crying out for Gaddafi’s blood and holding up pictures of him with Stars
of David drawn on his forehead, as something akin to the Founding
Fathers of the United States of America in Congress assembled. He
saw Jefferson and Madison elsewhere, also, as he added that "even as we
are focused on the urgent situation in Libya," his Administration was
working to determine "how the international community can most
effectively support the peaceful transition to democracy in both Tunisia
and in Egypt."

Obama expressed satisfaction that "the change that
is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the
region. This change doesn’t represent the work of the United
States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of
people who are seeking a better life." And he quoted a Libyan who
said: "We just want to be able to live like human beings." In
conclusion, he vowed that "throughout this time of transition, the
United States will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for
justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people."

The one
thing Obama didn’t explain was on what basis he believed that the Libyan
(and Tunisian and Egyptian) people themselves were interested in
principles and rights such as the freedom of speech and the dignity of
all people, or held an understanding of freedom and justice remotely
comparable to that of the American Constitutional system.

Unfortunately for him, there are numerous signs that they don’t.
It is not insignificant vandalism that protesters in Libya have marked
Gaddafi’s picture with the Star of David; rather, it is an indication of
the protesters’ worldview, and of the pervasiveness of Islamic
anti-Semitism. When Muslim protesters want to portray someone as a
demon, they paint a Star of David on his picture. This also shows
the naiveté of Obama and others who insist that the demonstrators in
Libya, Egypt (where the Star of David was drawn on Mubarak’s picture
also) and elsewhere in the Middle East are pro-democracy secularists.
They may be pro-democracy insofar as they want the will of the people to
be heard, but given their worldview, their frame of reference, and their
core assumptions about the world, if that popular will is heard, it will
likely result in huge victories for the Muslim Brotherhood and similar
pro-Sharia groups. Hence the ubiquitous chant of the Libyan
protesters: not "Give me liberty or give me death," but "No god but
Allah!"

Andrew Roberts
says that after two years in office it seems that Obama has finally
found a foreign policy doctrine, but the trick will
be sticking to it when the going gets tough like in Libya.

Obama
has stated, in a telephone call with Angela Merkel on Saturday about
Colonel Gaddafi, that "When a leader's only means of staying in power is
to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy
to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now."
Could this be the long-awaited "Obama Doctrine," at least in outline?
It certainly seems to have the high-sounding tome of a presidential
pronouncement.

Every president strives to have a foreign policy
Doctrine -- note the capital D -- that gets named after him. The
Truman Doctrine prescribed the way to contain Communism, the Kennedy
Doctrine the way to defy it, and the Reagan Doctrine the way to defeat
it. More recently, the Bush Doctrine defined how, in the War on
Terror, states had to decide whether they were for America or against
her, and explained unequivocally what would happen to those caught on
the wrong side of the divide. In this year of revolutions in the
Middle East, Obama might now be stumbling towards an Obama Doctrine, in
a foreign policy so far made in a vacuum.

It may be completely
absurd in historical terms, but at least its overarching theme about
legitimacy sounds good. If it had been promulgated in 1861, of
course, when Abraham Lincoln used mass violence against an insurrection
of his own people for four years at the cost of 600,000 lives, Barack
Obama might not have the vote today, but there's little advantage in
pointing out such intellectual and historical inconsistencies.
Otherwise we might also wind up wondering why the then Senator Obama
opposed a war to overthrow a certain Iraqi dictator who used mass
violence against his own people as his only means of staying in power?

For Obama is a man who does not want to act when it's right to do so
unless it also sounds right. If the sound bite fits, do it,
especially if it includes impressive words from international
jurisprudence like "legitimacy." The fact is, however, that were
the pro-Gaddafi forces, which seem to include the all-important air
force, actually -- God forbid -- to defeat the insurgents, and were
Gaddafi to re-establish control in Libya, the United States and the West
would quickly find that he had re-established his "legitimacy to rule"
too. We would be sending back our oilmen after a decent interval,
all talk of "legitimacy" conveniently forgotten. Legitimacy comes
from different places in different countries at different periods of
history, and in Libya since 1969 it has come from the barrel of a gun,
which is where it very firmly remains today.

That is not to say
that Obama should not stick to his newfound Doctrine, just so long as he
extends it to countries beyond the Middle East. Were the Chinese
to use mass violence against their own people as their only means of
staying in power, as they did in Tiananmen Square in 1989, can we expect
Obama to call for them "to do what is right for their country by leaving
now," or would it just apply to weak powers like Robert Mugabe's
Zimbabwe or the military dictatorship in Burma?

Or is this latest
pronouncement, as I suspect, merely a high-sounding form of words that
sounds good for the present Libyan situation, but which will be swiftly
forgotten the moment they no longer suit the Obama Administration's
immediate requirements.

Do Tyrants Fear America Anymore?

Nile Gardner
says Obama’s timid foreign policy is an embarrassment for a global
superpower. The débacle of Obama’s handling of the Libya issue is
symbolic of a wider problem at the heart of his administration’s foreign
policy. The fact that it took ten days and at least a thousand
dead on the streets of Libya’s cities before Obama finally mustered the
courage to call for Muammar "Mad dog" Gaddafi to step down is highly
embarrassing for the world’s only superpower, and emblematic of a
deer-in-the-headlights approach to world leadership. Washington
seems incapable of decisive decision-making on foreign policy at the
moment, a far cry from the days when it swept entire regimes from power,
and defeated America’s enemies with deep-seated conviction and an
unshakeable drive for victory.

Just a few years ago the United
States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes,
strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the
face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears
weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach. From
Tehran to Tripoli, the Obama administration has been pathetically slow
to lead, and afraid to condemn acts of state-sponsored repression and
violence. When protesters took to the streets to demonstrate
against the Islamist dictatorship in Iran in 2009, the brutal repression
that greeted them was hardly a blip on Barack Obama’s teleprompter
screen, barely meriting a response from a largely silent presidency.

In contrast to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Obama fails to see
the United States as an exceptional nation, with a unique role in
leading the free world and standing up to tyranny. In his speeches
abroad he has frequently found fault with his own country, rather than
projecting confidence in American greatness. From Cairo to
Strasbourg he has adopted an apologetic tone rather than demonstrating
faith in America as a shining city upon a hill, a beacon of freedom and
liberty. A leader who lacks pride in his own nation’s historic
role as a great liberator simply cannot project strength abroad.

It has also become abundantly clear that the Obama team attaches little
importance to human rights issues, and in contrast to the previous
administration has not pursued a freedom agenda in the Middle East and
elsewhere. It places far greater value upon engagement with
hostile regimes, even if they are carrying out gross human rights
abuses, in the mistaken belief that appeasement enhances security.
This has been the case with Iran, Russia and North Korea for example.
This administration has also been all too willing to sacrifice US
leadership in deference to supranational institutions such as the United
Nations, whose track record in standing up to dictatorships has been
virtually non-existent.

The White House’s painful navel-gazing on
Libya last week, with even the French adopting a far tougher stance, is
cause for grave concern. Obama's timid approach
to foreign policy is the last thing the world needs at a time of
mounting turmoil in the Middle East, including the growing threat of a
nuclear-armed Iran, and Islamist militancy on the rise from Egypt to
Yemen. US leadership is now needed more than ever, but has
embarrassingly gone AWOL on the world stage.

Barack Carter-Obama Is Back

Ross Kaminsky
is reporting that on Monday's edition of CNN's Situation Room,
host Wolf Blitzer and political analyst Gloria Borger discussed Barack
Obama's response to the situation in Libya, bringing unwitting clarity
to the issue of Barack Obama's projected and real weakness.

First, they wondered aloud how it could have been that Barack Obama
would come out relatively quickly against Egypt's Hosni Mubarak who,
while not a paragon of democratic virtue, was nevertheless an important
and mostly reliable ally of the U.S. and partner in peace with Israel
for three decades, but stay silent about Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
for nearly two weeks. Gaddafi is a man who has been responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and other westerners and who
doesn't even have allies in the Arab world.

Instead of running a
country, Gaddafi should have long ago been executed for murder.
He's unbalanced, apparently delusional, and murdering his own people.
But Obama said nothing against this dictator until who knows how much
Libyans were killed in the streets. The inconsistency and poor
judgment of Obama that Blitzer and Borger point to is something that
even the left, but especially the critically important independent
voters, can't help but notice.

As Stephen Hayes said at an event
in Colorado, the ferry boat that eventually brought hundreds Americans
and other westerners to safety in Malta, first sat for several days in a
harbor just outside Tripoli, bobbing in the waves, waiting for
conditions to improve -- an all too fitting metaphor for Obama's
reaction to the events in Libya.

In attempting to answer their
own question of the administration's delayed reaction to the revolt in
Libya, Blitzer said that perhaps Obama was worried that strong words
against Gaddafi might put at risk about 150 American diplomats in
Tripoli. But the only way that would make sense is if Obama knows
that he is, or at least is perceived in Libya as, the second coming of
Jimmy Carter: a man who would let American diplomats be taken hostage
and then not have the wisdom or courage to do whatever it takes to
rescue them and cause great and permanent harm to the hostage takers.

After all, in the purely political world in which Barack Obama lives
-- and I write this understanding how Machiavellian it sounds -- the
taking of an American hostage by the Libyan (or any other) government
could be as much a political opportunity as a political risk for Obama.
Of course, a rescue attempt could go horribly wrong, resulting in the
death of those who we were trying to rescue. That would indeed
reflect badly on him, but not nearly as badly as doing nothing.
Implicit in Blitzer and Borger's comments is the all too believable
suggestion that Barack Obama is too likely to do nothing, too afraid of
a bad outcome, or too disdainful of U.S. military power to do something,
and that therefore the risk of American hostages is indeed one he cannot
take.

Unfortunately, his inability to take that risk jeopardizes
far more than the slight possibility that Americans would have been
taken hostage. It risks every would-be Arab reformer-rebel who
might, if they could expect U.S. support, try to topple their various
dictators instead deciding that the US is all hat and no cattle when it
comes to brave talk of democracy. Well, to be fair, there's
precious little brave talk from Obama, so perhaps you can't call him
hypocritical; to the extent that U.S. policy has encouraged these
rebellions, it's something for which George W. Bush can take far more
credit that Barack Carter-Obama. And, by projecting such abject
weakness, Obama's actions actually increase the chances of Americans
being treated badly by any tin-pot dictator trying to get leverage on
the U.S.

When even CNN implicitly recognizes that Barack Obama
probably is, and certainly is seen in the Arab world as, every bit as
spineless as the worst American president in recent generations (until
the current one), Barack Obama and Democrats who hope to get elected or
re-elected in 2012 had better hope that foreign policy magically drops
off the table as an issue before the elections. The way things are
going in North Africa and the Middle East, the Obama-Carter comparisons
are likely to haunt Obama through the election and will increase the
chances that his first term is also his last -- much to the chagrin of
dictators around the world.

The Obama Doctrine

Victor Davis Hanson says the problem with
Obama’s Middle East policy is that there is no policy, and that’s why we
have heard nothing consistent or comprehensive from the administration
that would try to explain our glee at Mubarak and Ali leaving but
outreach to the far worse Assad, the monster Ahmadinejad’s enjoying
exemption from "meddling" but Qaddafi’s being merely "unacceptable,"
talk of going into Libya as good but no talk of Saudi Arabia going into
Bahrain as good or bad, reset diplomacy as not judging other regimes but
human rights declared universal, no idea whether plebiscites without
constitutional guarantees will bring governments worse than the
pro-American autocracies that fall, and loud declarations of Bush’s
policies as bad but also reset diplomacy’s quietly embracing most of
them in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the not-to-be-named war on terror.

All this is in line with simultaneously establishing withdrawal
dates and surging into Afghanistan, virtually closing Guantanamo, and
regretting Iraq while claiming it as a possible "greatest achievement."
All that can be said for it is that the chaos keeps our friends and
enemies guessing -- and that confused inaction is, I suppose, preferable
to confused intervention.

What then is or was at the heart of
U.S. bewilderment in the region?

Three flawed assumptions:

1) Not being George Bush meant that we should
keep mum about "democracy" and "human rights" and not judge the
culturally constructed practices of 'other' indigenous governments.
We saw that rhetoric early in 2009, and it was reified by our
silence over the Iranian protests six months later. Oddly, we
were to assume that a right-wing Bush had been too idealistic, and
that a left-wing Obama was going to return to realpolitik dressed up
in multicultural platitudes of non-intervention. The result is
that we have become loud multicultural neocons who sermonize but are
not taken too seriously;

2) We trumpeted multilateralism in
the sense that we would follow the lead of the U.N. or the EU/NATO
or the Arab League, all of whom are always waiting to follow
America’s lead. Apparently, the administration believed that
the usual serial criticism from these international bodies meant
that they don’t like U.S. leadership. In fact, they both do
like us to lead and even more do like to criticize us for leading --
and find absolutely no contradiction in that at all. The
result is that they are all unhappy that they finally got what they
have always wanted and did not want.

3) As we saw in Obama’s
first interview (with al Arabiya), his Cairo speech, and commentary
from his advisers, the president as Barack Hussein Obama believed
that his unique racial heritage, his non-traditional name, his
father’s Muslim ancestry, and his left-of-center politics were all
supposed to combine to reassure our former enemies and suspicious
neutrals that we were now on the right side of progressive
history-making -- as if a democratic, capitalist, wealthy military
superpower could at last be seen as quasi-revolutionary, and
therefore they should both like us and desist from inappropriate
behavior. It was almost the foreign-policy equivalent of a
stuffy, big-city establishment organization cynically hiring a hip
community-organizing liaison to go out into the neighborhood and
convince suspicious locals that it was 'really' on their side -- and
it has worked about as well as these things usually do for all
parties involved.

So where do we go from here? In the next
crisis, I suggest that we can always boycott the Olympics.

After All Of Obama's Bowing And Scraping

Verum Serum
is reporting that a
protest against Barack Obama's visit to Brazil ended in confusion late
on Friday (3/18) in the center of Rio de Janeiro. It should arrive
to the country tomorrow evening and stay until the morning of Monday
(21).

According to the Reserved Service of the 13th Military
Police Battalion (Tiradentes Square), the protesters threw a Molotov
cocktail at the U.S. Consulate. Part of the device reached a
vigilante and his vest caught fire. To counter the confusion, MPs
threw stun grenades and tear gas.

The PM said at least 13 people
attending the protest were arrested and taken to the police station the
avenue Gomes Freire (Precinct 5) in the center.

According to the corporation, about 100 people
attended the protest. They are part of organizations like the CUT
(Central Unica dos Trabalhadores), Sindipetro (Union of Oil), UNE
(National Union of Students) and MST (Landless Movement).

The
march began in front of the Candelaria church in downtown Rio, and
followed by the Rio Branco Avenue until you reach the consulate.
Were displayed banners reading "Obama, go home" and "Imperialism no!
Obama, take the jaws of the pre-salt. All the solidarity of
peoples in struggle."

It’s no wonder that the White House
announced earlier today that Obama will no longer be speaking at a
public square in Rio. It seems that Obama’s days of pontificating
before enraptured foreign audiences may be over.

The Washington Posts
is reporting that the United States disavowed torture and pledged to
treat terror suspects humanely, but set aside calls to drop the death
penalty, as the United Nations carried out its first review of
Washington’s human rights record.

As part a groundbreaking
"commitment to improvement" under the Obama administration, the
U.S. joined the 47-nation Human Rights Council in 2009. And in doing so,
submitted to more international scrutiny.

State Department legal
adviser Harold Koh outlined nine key improvement areas Friday,
encompassing about 174 of the 228 recommendations the community had
urged on Washington in an initial report last November. Nations
are held accountable for what they agree to improve.

Koh said the
U.S. would agree to improvements in areas ranging from civil rights to
national security to immigration, including intolerance of "torture"
and the humane treatment of suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention
facility in Cuba.

Cuba, Iran and Venezuela complained
the U.S. was brushing too many recommendations aside, while China
and Russia said the U.S. was not going far enough on Guantanamo,
and called for it to be shut down as Barack Obama had promised.

Other nations urged the U.S. to reduce overcrowding in prisons, ratify
international treaties on the rights of women and children, and take
further steps to prevent racial profiling. Koh said Obama also
would push to ratify additional measures under the Geneva Conventions
and add protections for anyone it detains in an international armed
conflict.

However, Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil
Liberties Union’s human rights program, said one of the biggest U.S.
shortcomings is that it has still has not created an independent human
rights monitoring commission as has been done in over 100 countries.
He said:

"While the Obama administration should be
commended for its positive engagement in this process, in order to
lead by example, this international engagement must be followed by
concrete domestic actions to bring U.S. laws and policies in line
with international human rights standards."

Some of the
current and recent members of the United Nations Human Rights Council
that are demanding the U. S. act humanely are:

The BBC
is
reporting a new effort to win hearts and minds in Pakistan.

USAID -- the "independent" agency that funnels US taxpayer dollars to
150 of the world's 192 countries (video)
-- is donating $20 million (£12m) to the country to create a local
Urdu version of the show.

The show is to be filmed in Lahore and
aired later in the year. The project aims to boost education in
Pakistan, where many children have no access to regular schooling.

"The program is part of a series of ventures
that is aimed at developing the educational infrastructure in the
country. Education is one of the vital sectors that need help
in Pakistan."

The show will be set in a village in Pakistan -- rather
than the streets of New York -- with roadside tea shop and residents
sitting on their verandas.

The remake will star a puppet called
Rani, the six-year-old daughter of a peasant farmer, with pigtails and a
school uniform, according to Britain's Guardian newspaper.

James Eckert
says Obama's idea of how to conduct operations in Libya is so
nuanced that we may well soon be bombing both sides.

Sure,
you're probably saying to yourself: "If we're bombing Muammar Gadddafi’s
Libya, what's not to like?" and "Hey, if Obama has decided to attack one
of our enemies rather than undermine one of our allies, could there be
hope he’s changing?

But is there any reason to believe his
decision-making in connection with the situation in Libya is part of a
rational scheme, a plan, the dawn of an Obama Doctrine? Certainly
not that anyone else can seem to detect. Or that he can explain.

Sorry, talking about Obama and foreign affairs is like talking about
the weather. You know, you talk about it and that’s pretty much
it. Obama can’t seem to do anything right about foreign policy any
more than he can do anything at all about the weather. He clearly
prefers to simply watch things unfold just like the rest of us do.
He comments about it occasionally, but, of course, not as much as he
likes talking about, say, basketball. And the media gives him a
pass.

There is no real thought process at work here.
Things just happen. Things get said -- often opposite things one
day to the next, just like some weather forecast.

Now I am not
suggesting that Obama has it easy here. It is probably difficult
for him trying to guess what the "International Community" would really
like for him to do. Two weeks ago it was wrong to intervene in
Libya. Now it is right to bomb the place. "Gaddafi has to
go," Obama declares one day. Another day he says we are not trying
to achieve "regime change." Never does tell us the magic formula
he has in mind that doesn’t change the Gaddafi regime but yet Gaddafi
goes. Clearly what he thinks the situation calls for is non-change
we can believe in. At least he isn’t talking about hope.

One thing about Obama is very clear. He is not even thinking about
returning that Nobel Peace Prize that he received for being anti-war and
hoping for peace. Isn’t it brilliant how he ended this war so fast
just by declaring that it was not really a war but rather something else
whose exact meaning no one could figure out?

They should have
called Obama’s non-war in Libya "Operation Rorschach Test" -- because I
guess I'm not looking at it right. But, then, neither is he.

Remember the Hillary Clinton for President campaign ad that
suggested it would be a good idea to have a President who might have
some faintest idea what to do if his phone rang at 3AM and he had to
make a decision involving an issue of great importance to America?

That question about who we want answering that 3AM call was a good
one.

The clear lesson of the events of recent weeks should be
obvious: Barrack Obama is not yet up to handling even a 3PM phone call
-- not if it’s about anything really important to the country.

Russians Too

Nikolaus von Twickel, writing in the Moscow
Times, is reporting that amid growing anxiety over whose name will
appear on the 2012 presidential ballot, lawmakers and pundits were quick
to welcome the news that one president would certainly stand for
re-election next year -- Barack Obama.

The U.S. president's
announcement, made in an e-mail to supporters Monday, sent many in
Moscow praising the achievements of a "reset" in relations that has
become a hallmark of both Obama's and Dmitry Medvedev's presidencies.

"I will be very happy to see a second Obama term because this will
mean a maximum in policy continuity regarding Russia," Mikhail Fedotov,
head of Medvedev's human right's council, said by telephone Tuesday.

Fedotov said this was even more the case because there is no clear
Republican challenger to Obama.

His comments were echoed by
Alexei Malashenko, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, who said a
second Obama term would be the best possible outcome for Moscow because
there was no more capable or promising leader in current U.S. politics.
"He is the first U.S. president completely free of Cold War thinking,"
Malashenko explained.

Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the State
Duma's International Affairs Committee, also has enthusiastically
embraced Obama as Moscow's obvious choice. "Obama's global agenda
is much better and more productive than what was proposed by his
predecessors," Kosachyov, who is also a leading member of United Russia,
said in comments published on the party's web site Monday.

But
Kosachyov made it clear that what he liked about Obama's stance on
Russia might seem a weakness to others. Previous administrations,
he said, defined U.S. national interests as meaning world dominance,
while Obama accepts the concept of a multipolar world as being
compatible with its national interests.

Fellow United Russia
Deputy Sergei Markov put it more bluntly. "We should support Obama
because "he softened support for anti-Russian regimes in our
neighborhood, like that of [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili," he
said by telephone.

Human Events
says that
Barack Obama brought to the Oval Office the foreign policy experience of
a community organizer, that is to say, none. And it shows.
If there is such a thing as an Obama Doctrine, it might be this: React
slowly to a foreign crisis and, in a conflict, pick a side hostile to
U.S. interests. Here are the Top 10 Obama Foreign Policy Flubs.

1. Libya: NATO’s Obama-backed Libyan
excursion is entering its third month with no end in sight, as
Muammar Gaddafi and the ill-trained and ill-equipped rebel forces
battle to a stalemate. Without the U.S. taking the dominant
military lead, NATO’s feeble effort is exposing a shocking weakness
in the military alliance. And Obama still hasn’t explained why
Gaddafi’s troops shooting into crowds warrants retribution, while
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can do the same with impunity.
What an ill-conceived effort, with no real leadership and no clear
goals.

2. Iran: In 2009, when Tehran protesters
looked to Washington for help, Obama offered little support as he
held on to the dream that his magical words could sway Iran’s
Islamist leaders. His naive stance snubbed the masses of
people hoping for democratic reform while ensuring that Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad will continue his march to make Iran a nuclear power.

3. Egypt: First, Vice President Joe Biden says
longtime U.S. ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is not a
dictator, then the administration calls for him to step aside.
By withdrawing support for Mubarak, Obama sent shock waves to other
U.S. allies in the Middle East -- including oil-rich Saudi Arabia
and Bahrain -- and gave an opening for the Muslim Brotherhood to
rise to power.

4. The Dollar: Fed Chairman Ben
Bernanke’s policy of qualitative easing is eroding the dollar while
encouraging inflation. International holders of U.S. dollars
are not pleased to see the drop, spurring talk of a different
currency to dominate the world’s financial system. Along with
the Obama deficits, America’s creditworthiness is in question.

5. Israel: Obama's speech seeking a return to
Israel's 1967 borders undercut America's only reliable ally in the
region. His attempt to broker any kind of accord between
Israel and the Palestinians is in disarray. His special envoy
George Mitchell just resigned and Israel is rightfully concerned
with Obama’s hard-line on Israeli borders and his fondness for the
Arab world. And with the "Arab Spring" possibly sweeping
Islamists into power, Israel will be further isolated in the region.

6. Global organizations: By ceding power to the
United Nations, International Monetary Fund and other international
organizations, Obama is undermining America’s sovereignty. The
Libyan military action is a case in point, approved by the UN and
not by Congress. And with the IMF funneling billions of U.S.
tax dollars to bail out debt-ridden countries, one wonders if the
idea of a One World Government is becoming a reality.

7.
Brazil oil: It was bad enough when Obama pulled the plug on
oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. But after oil companies
sent their drilling rigs to Brazil, Obama said, "We want to be one
of your best customers," and announced plans to lend billions to the
state-owned oil company to drill off the coast of Brazil. Memo
to Obama: There are plenty of oil resources in the United
States that, if tapped, could create jobs and lessen dependence on
foreign oil.

8. Pakistan: This supposed U.S. ally
has consistently undermined U.S. anti-terror efforts, as its
intelligence service seemingly is supportive of anti-American
jihadists. Pakistan either allowed safe harbor for Osama bin
Laden or was totally incompetent despite billions of dollars of U.S.
aid. The mixed signals from the Obama administration following
the Osama bin Laden raid only further damaged the relationship with
Pakistan.

9. Russia: Obama’s clumsy attempt to
push the reset button with Russia had the U.S. making concessions on
missile defense and nuclear arms without gaining anything in return.
Instead of moving closer to the U.S., Russia is aligning with China,
Brazil, India and other developing nations on key issues.

10.
Apologizing: Obama’s apology tour shortly after taking office
sent the message that he didn’t really think all that highly about
America. Not only wasn’t America exceptional, but it was
guilty of heinous offenses. No thank you, Obama, for your
apologies. As Memorial Day approaches and we honor those who
died for our country, we can be proud of the causes they served.